Learning From Challenges Faced by Mentoring Program Leaders

By Drs. Gary M. Kilburg and Eloise Hockett

ARTICLE INDEX

• The Context for This Research Study
• Introduction to the Third Research Study
• Review of the Relevant Literature
• Methodology
• Data Collection
• Results
• Conclusions

The Context for This Research Study

The research of these authors encompasses three stages of inquiry and reports across five organizations and six years. The current report is the third of these. This presents a very comprehensive perspective of the challenges faced by many mentoring pairs/teams and their program leaders. It also provides a picture of how those leaders identify, address and resolve their challenges. The lessons learned from this work are a knowledge base that can inform our efforts to make our mentoring and mentoring programs as effective as possible.

Study One - The goal of the original study was to identify mentoring teams that were encountering recurring problems, attempt to manage those problems, and assess the effectiveness of those management procedures (Kilburg & Hancock, 2003). That work investigated 149 mentoring teams in four organizations over a two year period. Eight areas of concern were identified by the researchers. That study is posted on the IMA web site at http://www.mentoring-association.org/MembersOnly/K12/Kilburg.html

Study Two - In the second study the mentoring program coordinators from the four organizations and the senior researcher identified three mentoring team cases to represent the eight areas of concern identified in the first study and then examined the events that negatively impacted those relationships.

That study was conducted over one year and is also on IMA’s web site, at http://www.mentoring-association.org/MembersOnly/K12/Kilburg2.html

Study Three - The current study identified recurring challenges encountered by mentoring program leaders over a six-year period, the interventions suggested by the authors, and the impact on the challenges of the local program leaders’ implementation of those interventions. The mentoring program leaders included mentor program planning committees, program coordinators, local supervisors, and Critical Friends Group (CFG) Coaches from five organizations.

Introduction to the Third Research Study

Developing quality mentoring programs takes a great deal of effort and careful planning on the part of many people. It takes time to build knowledge, support, trust, capacity, and a culture where professional collaboration is the daily norm (Portner, 2005). Wheller and Fanning (1989) are convinced that when such a system of support is in place it acts as an effective delivery system and professional bridgework that enables participants to work and grow more effectively.

Without question, participating in this collaborative partnership requires a certain amount of flexibility. It also requires surrendering a degree of control of traditional power so that increased shared leadership can be created (Fullan, 2004; Grument, 1989). Collaboration can also mean having to share the credit for any achievements or even letting the beneficiary of the partnership take all of the credit.

This is the nature of the challenging transition to a true learning organization. Gaining insights into that transition was the focus of this third study. Sharing those insights is the goal of this report.

Terms the authors uses:
“NEC” - The New Employee Conversation is a monthly meeting of new employees that is facilitated by the NEC Director and selected CFG Coaches.
“Anomaly” - A highly unusual situation. An anomaly occurred in only one of the five organizations in this study and was because of the gross negative behavior exhibited by at least one mentor and one supervisor. “Push backs” - Any leaders or program participants who were dissatisfied with some part of the mentoring program, or who were using the mentoring program platform to complain about larger organizational issues.

About the Authors

Gary Kilburg and Eloise Hockett are Professors of Education in the School of Education at George Fox University in Portland Oregon. Dr. Kilburg is the Director and Dr. Hockett is the Associate Director of the Mentoring Institute which is also at George Fox University. As such they helped in program design, training, and program evaluation in the subject organizations.

The researchers recognize that most mentoring programs are effective and this was the case for a majority of the mentoring examined in this study. The concern is to understand what happens when implementation or mentoring practices fall short of the ideal programs try to attain (Kilburg & Hancock, 2003; Kilburg & Hancock, 2006; Newton, Bergstrom, Brennan, Dunne et al., 1994).

Review of the Relevant Literature

Unfortunately, some leaders feel driven to get a mentoring program up and running without much learning from research and best practice and without much planning of all of the important details that are critical to program effectiveness. When program designers do not learn from best practice, do not pay attention to detail, or do not provide adequate planning time they typically must learn by making their own mistakes. The end result may be a program that is understaffed, lacks the appropriate funding, and takes on more responsibility than the time allowed can effectively address (Sherk, 1998).

The challenges created by such mistakes are part of the focus of this study and report. The literature in mentoring is also relevant to this research study in several other ways:

1. The Collaborative Design and Implementation Process
2. Structures for Leadership of Mentoring Programs
   1. A Mentoring Program Planning Committee
   2. B. Mentoring Program Coordinators
   3. C. The Role of Supervisors
   4. D. Critical Friends Group Coaches

1. The Collaborative Design and Implementation Process

The collaborative process involved in mentor program design and implementation brings together people with a similar sense of the value of mentoring and professional development. However, each person may bring a different set of beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions to the collaborative process. That diversity can provide planners and leaders with strengths for the process as long as each participant is valued for what they have to offer and a focus on creating mentoring to increase professional growth.

2. Structures for Leadership of Mentoring Programs

Trying to implement principles of effective leadership leads to experimentation with various ways of structuring leadership and to learning what works and why. This is a crucial factor sincethe study of it provides us with insights into how effective mentoring program leaders focus their energy, time and resources on attaining the vision for mentoring in their organizations. The leadership roles in the five mentoring programs during the first four years described in this study included:

• Program planning committees,
• Mentoring program coordinators, and,
• Supervisors.

In the fifth and sixth year of this study Critical Friends Group Coaches were added to one organization's leadership team.

What does the literature tells us regarding various ways of structuring program leadership?

A. A Mentoring Program Planning Committee

One of the first steps in designing a mentoring program is to create a planning committee that is composed of leaders who are representative of stakeholders across the organization. The committee typically includes veteran employees, supervisors, specialists, the local union/association, and training and development leaders, among others (Kilburg, 2003; Sherk, 1998). The planning committee is a collaborative partnership that lays the foundation, creates the vision, sets the standard for problem-solving, goal setting, mission, financial support, program design, mentor selection and training, defining measures of success, and design of research and program evaluation (Bull, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 1998). That the committee and process are collaborative ensures that the program and participants benefit from a wealth of experience and the collective power of many minds with one focus.

B. Mentoring Program Coordinators

The mentoring literature tells us that a “champion” is needed if mentoring programs are to survive and thrive. That is why program coordinators are so needed and why they were studied. Effective program coordinators recognize the importance of being visible. They understand their leadership is not an arm's length proposition and that new employees, mentors, and supervisors have a right to see and/or hear from their coordinator on a regular, even daily basis (DePree, 1992). An effective program coordinator also recognizes that their accountability for and willingness to handle the day-to-day issues is crucial to the success of the mentoring program and participants’ professional development (Portner, 2001).

Effective coordinators continually assess the effectiveness of the program and the mentoring teams. When coordinators are proactive in this assessment two things occur:

1. They demonstrate that they care and value the welfare of the mentors and proteges
2. They desire to improve the quality of the mentoring experience, especially by eliminating any roadblocks to success for participants (Ganser, Bainer, Bendixon-Noe, Brock et al., 1998; Gray & Gray, 1985; Janas, 1996; Kilburg, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 1998).

Research says when the role of program coordinator is added to a regular full time job it is important to provide additional compensation. Also vital are opportunities for continuing education, such as adult development, research on mentoring practices, and program design, all topics they must know to succeed and they must USE for others to succeed (Sherk, 1998). Planning committees should make sure that the coordinator does not fall prey to burnout by adding another responsibility to an already busy schedule.

There are four results that ocurr when more responsibilities are added without taking any away to create adequate time:

1. It reduces the coordinators ability to problem solve issues in a timely way.
2. It suggests a lack of concern for the welfare of the coordinator.
3. It suggests that the organization is not willing to support the mentoring program
4. Adding on more responsibility without the dedicated time to do the required work and without ensuring coordinators have the skill to multi task, may increase the possibility of coordinator burnout (Sweeny, 1993).

C. The Role of Supervisors

One key element for a successful mentoring program is ensuring that supervisors are supportive of proteges, mentors, and their professional development (Freedman & Jaffe, 1993; Portner, 2005; Scherer, 1999). This is the case whether supervisors are a formal or informal member of the mentoring leadership team. Unfortunately, even after an initial training in mentoring, many supervisors excuse themselves from further involvement in the mentoring program. Reasons for this include, but are not restricted, to the following:

1. Lack of time because of a busy schedule
2. Desire to respect mentor team confidentiality.
3. They are viewed as an evaluator and not a coach or mentor
4. They felt like a 'third wheel'. That is, the supervisor did not want to “get in the way” of the mentor and protege while they were establishing their professional relationship.

Whatever the reason, such supervisors fail to understand and accept their important role as a member of the leadership team and the contribution they could make in the mentoring process (Brock & Grady, 1997; Kilburg, 2003; Portner, H. 2001).

Supervisors can compliment the work of the mentor in a variety of ways from spending time interacting on a regular basis with and supporting employees, to meeting with new employees regarding expectations, and providing resources.

Effective supervisors provide opportunities for the mentor and new employee to observe one another and other employees; they can adjust schedules and expectations so mentors and proteges can meet during common lunch and free times. The supervisor can allocate discretionary resources, cover for either employee to give them release time to meet, provide opportunities to attend workshops and conferences together, and create the time to discuss professional issues (Austin & Baldwin, 1992; Kilburg, 2006; Scherer, 1999). When supervisors create these opportunities they enhance community and capacity for professional growth (Elmore, 2000).

One concern for many supervisors who participate in a mentoring program are the boundaries that exists among evaluating, coaching, and mentoring. The concern is for a potential conflict of interest with the supervisor's primary role as an evaluator. When supervisors are evaluating, they are looking for employee weaknesses or challenges that need improvement. When the supervisor is coaching and/or mentoring an employee, the employee often asserts their own learning agenda (Barkely, 2005). When a supervisor makes the decision to act as a coach and/or mentor for an employee that employee needs to know that they are not being evaluated at that time. Conversely, if the supervisor switches from a mentor or coach to an evaluator's role during the conversation, then that change should be clarified. A lack of clarity in this boundary can damage the supervisor - employee relationship and possibly the relationship the supervisor might have with other mentoring team members.

D. Critical Friends Group Coaches

In Graves' (2001) book he states,

If (organizations) are to become places where employees find community and engage in intellectual work, leaders need to provide environments that help employees do these things. If employees cannot practice intellectual work . . . they simply fall back on clichés' or on tried-and-true practices that may be ill suited for success in their work. (p. 126)

The Critical Friends Group (CFG) is one way to structure such intellectual inquiry and to promote development of a learning community. During the last two years of this study, one organization adopted the CFG as a means of attaining this goal. Typically each Critical Friends Group has a least one coach that is trained to create a collegial environment for participants and use protocols for problem solving to improve practice and results (Dunne, Nave, & Lewis, 2000; NSRF, 2006).

Guidelines are not enough to safeguard vulnerability, the context for honest sharing and problem solving. Participants still need to be considerate in their questions and discussions and the coach needs to play a significant role in helping CFG members learn and implement effective practices. Coaches safeguard listening time that is critical to the practice of problem solving. According to one employee, “If I am in a CFG with you, it means that I am as committed to supporting improvement of your practice ... as I am to mine.”
A skilled and experienced coach is essential if a CFGroup is to succeed in identifying learning goals that make sense in their organization, look reflectively at practices intended to achieve those goals, and collaboratively examine each others’ practice (Dunne, Nave et al., 2000, p. 6).

Methodology

This was a qualitative case study. The following data collection techniques were used:

1. Gathering data from fieldwork, such as by spending time in the setting where participants normally spend their time (Yin, 2002a, 2002b);
2. Using survey and interview data to establish a chain of evidence (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Yin, 2002a, 2002b); and
3. Providing first hand accounts by the researcher that contribute to the depth of the study (Yin, 2002a, 2002b).

Research Questions - The following research questions guided this study:

(1) What types of challenges are routinely encountered by mentoring program leaders ?
(2) What impact do interventions have on the recurring challenges and on program leaders ?

Sample - Data were collected over a six-year period from:

• 25 program planning committee members
• 6 mentoring program coordinators
• 13 supervisors
• 20 Critical Friends Group Coaches.

Setting - Table 1 describes the number and type of organizations that participated in each of the six years of the study. The organizations ranged in size from 45 employees to about 1,000 employees.

Table 1- The number and type of organizations that participated in the study

Data Collection

The data collection was coordinated by the authors. Each year of the study the program leaders were interviewed a minimum of four times. Data reduction occurred each year of the study and there was no conscious attempt by the researchers to replicate the commonly occurring themes.

The following identifies the four steps used to collect data:

(1) Data were collected from supervisors, planning committee members, and program coordinators in October, February, April, and June of the first four years.
During the last two years of the study, data were collected each of nine months during each year and Critical Friends Group Coaches were also included as members of the rural organization's leadership team. Both formal and informal interviews were used at each collection point. Additional data were gathered from informal and formal conversations and observations by the senior researcher. There was no intent by the researcher to prompt the participants to answer in any specific way.

(2) Challenges were identified by the researchers using surveys and interviews, conversations, and observations which were transcribed verbatim. These were read and problems were recorded. The interviews and conversations were analyzed by reflecting on the data and reducing the data to a manageable form, allowing researchers to compile lists of common challenges the leaders faced.

(3) The third step identified recurring themes all the leadership teams encountered. Those themes are identified in Table 2 below.
Participants were interviewed onsite in small groups and in individual settings to collect additional data and to develop a more detailed description of the recurring challenges. The interviewer took field notes and then transcribed them immediately following each session. To be included the following criteria had to be met:
> the problem had to occur on a regular basis throughout the first 5 months of the year
> the leadership teams had to identify the problem as a concern that was not resolved within the first 5 months (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006).

(4) In stage four, intervention strategies were selected after the senior researcher consulted with the individual mentoring program leaders. The researcher provided data regarding the recurring challenges and then assisted the individual leadership teams in deciding on the type of intervention strategy to implement. After the intervention strategy had been implemented, members of each leadership team were interviewed to determine the success or failure of the intervention strategy.

Results

Regarding the first research question, leadership teams from five organizations identified a variety of problems they considered major concerns. The problems are first identified in Table 2 and second in narrative form. They are a composite of all the organizations’ leadership challenges and are not listed in priority. The data are as follows:

Table 2. Recurring Problems Encountered by Leadership Teams

The First Year - The two leadership teams were composed of 15 planning committee members, 4 supervisors, and 2 program coordinators. All 21 participated in the interview process and identified problems impacting the mentoring program, but both leadership teams were satisfied with the mentoring program for the first year.
The lack of time was the common factor in all of the problems.

The Second Year - Four organizations’ leadership teams participated in the study. A total of 10 supervisors, 4 program coordinators, and 31 planning committee members were interviewed. 

The Third and Fourth Year - Only two organizations’ leadership teams participated in the third and fourth year. These two included one metropolitan and one rural organization organization. The small rural organization was new to the study. Six supervisors, two program coordinators, and six planning committee members were interviewed. All of the planning committee members were from the small rural organization.

The recurring problems were essentially the same for both years, with a few minor variations. We have considered whether or not this finding of consistency could be an artifact of our scoring but we could not identify any confounding or biasing factors.

The Fifth and Sixth year - During the fifth and sixth years of the study, only one new rural organization participated in the study. Eight members on the planning committee, one program coordinator who was also the Director of Student Assessment, eight supervisors, and 20 Critical Friends Group coaches participating as the organization's leadership team.

At the beginning of the sixth year the program coordinator became the assistant CEO and a new coordinator was hired from within the mentoring program. The leadership team was also expanded to include eight peer coaches, as well as a Director of New Employee Conversations.

The earlier four organizations had one level of mentoring in which a mentor was paired with a new employee. By comparison, the new organization’s mentoring program included mentoring for all employees regardless of experience. This mentoring program had four levels:

• Level One - A Support Person who was responsible for mentoring all the employees new to the organization.
• Level Two - Eight mentors that had been trained as Critical Friends Groups Coaches who facilitated the monthly New Employee Conversation (NEC) meetings.
• Level Three - Any veteran or new employee that wanted to participate in a Critical Friends Group.
• Level Four - Added the second-year of the organization’s mentoring program (the study’s sixth year), included coaching services provided to all employees who sought it.

The problems which were identified during years five and six were essentially the same with a few exceptions.

Details About Challenges and Reponses to the Leaders’ Interventions

Once a recurring problem was identified as negatively impacting the program, interventions were introduced by a planning team, a program coordinator, or a supervisor from the organization. The senior trainer and researcher from the Mentoring Institute consulted with these leaders regarding the intervention to be implemented.

After an intervention was done the senior researcher surveyed and interviewed the mentors and proteges onsite and by email. Mentoring program coordinators and facilitators for the NEC meetings also played an important role in providing additional information through regular meetings with the senior researcher. Confidentiality was maintained during these meetings and in this report.

Planning Committee Perspectives

FUNDING - One of the most important resources in planning a mentoring program is funding. Unfortunately, three of the five organization planning committees were unable to obtain all of the funding necessary for the full implementation of the mentoring program during the first year. The money used to implement these programs came from a small grant to each of the organizations from the State Department of Education and from staff development monies from each organization. Despite the lack of funding, the planning committees made the decision to move forward and implement their programs without mentor or and program coordinator stipends and with no release time for observations.
The intervention strategy for the three organizations was to apply for additional grants from state and private organizations, to request an increase in the organization budgets for staff development, and to insert the mentoring program as a new line item in the regular budget.

PROBLEM SOLVING - Planning committees also faced problems mentoring teams and program coordinators reported during surveys and interviews. Concerns that negatively impacted the program included, but are not restricted to:

1. Determining topics new employees needed to know
2. Finding time for meetings for both new employees and mentors.
3. Obtaining release time for mentor and for protege observations.
4. Getting decision makers to provide appropriate program funding.
5. Convincing two supervisors that they needed to provide staff development monies and time for the mentoring teams.
6. Dealing with one supervisor’s refusal to support the mentoring program.

The intervention used to determine meeting topics was to survey new employees and ask which topics were needed.

Having enough release time was another problem for all mentoring programs. The intervention used by all of the planning committees was to seek funding for release time. They were very aggressive in trying to provide release time for the mentoring conversations. In some circumstances, the organization found staff development monies to pay for the release time. In other cases, building supervisors volunteered to create release time for mentoring teams to observe one another by cobering a team member's assignment.

One organization's planning committee had a veteran supervisor who initially said he was willing to participate in the new mentoring program. However, he did not provide opportunities for mentoring teams to meet, to attend staff development, nor did he assist new employees or mentors. He continually complained to employees and to the community about the mentoring program and other issues, about the Board and the CEO, who was also the program coordinator. The CEO, with the Boards approval, dismissed the supervisor and replaced him with another supervisor who was supportive of the organization and of the need for continued professional development at all levels

Program Coordinator Perspectives

The mentoring program coordinators felt that time was one factor that negatively impacted their work and the mentoring teams too. When each coordinator was asked for further explanation, their responses were similar. They felt they were always on a “fast track” in answering questions in a timely fashion, providing appropriate resources, and in general, meeting the needs of “everyone” in the mentoring program. In a majority of cases, the coordinators were able to meet the needs of the mentoring teams through immediate call backs and/or meetings with the mentoring teams within a 12 hour period.

One new employee characterized her coordinator's intervention in the following way:

I've really appreciate how quickly the coordinator has been able to respond to questions that my mentor and I had. I know they are extremely busy with all of their responsibilities, but it's real obvious she is committed to providing a quality environment for mentoring.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard some of the coordinators worked to provide time for new employees to meet on a monthly basis, there were often at least 2 or 3 new employees in each organization who were critical of the time spent in meetings. They argued that some of the content wasn't as helpful as they would have liked and that their daily schedules were already pushing the limits of their endurance.

The issue of time also impacted many of the coordinators' work schedules. All coordinators had their regular full-time position and the coordinator position was in addition to that. The intervention that was introduced by two planning committees prior to the start of the second year was to provide financial compensation for this extra duty assignment. The following comment by one of the two coordinators reflects the response to that support.

It was really wonderful to know the organization recognizes the importance of the work I am doing. I feel they appreciate the efforts that I'm making on behalf of employees and I hope they continue the effort. I know one of the reasons they have been so supportive is because of the work the assistant CEO has done on our behalf.

One organization had a most unusual problem that was considered an anomaly by the senior researcher. A series of formal and informal interviews with the CEO and several employees revealed a lack of trust between the leadership and the employees. This feeling was exacerbated by disciplinary actions by the Board and CEO prior to the start of the mentoring program. Collectively, these threatened the success of mentoring program the first year.

The CEO felt that establishing a mentoring program could provide healing within the organization and cause a positive response to the problem. After the program planning process was completed there was a sense of relief on the part of those employees and supervisors who participated. However, during the first mentor training one of the mentors who was very upset with the administration, spent considerable time talking about his concerns in the presence of the new employees and the other mentors. The following excerpt shows some of the senior trainer's thoughts about this experience.

I can't believe what I'm hearing. I can't believe this guy is grinding his axe in our first meeting. You'd think he would know better. This can't continue. He's going to ruin everything we've done.

After the training, the trainer met with the coordinator who was also the CEO. The trainer shared that the training had been generally successful based on the evaluations of the mentoring teams and on his own reflections at the end of the day. However, the trainer also shared that he felt “blindsided” in the first activity and explained what happened. The coordinator had the following response:

I'm sorry. I guess that I should have told you that you could have run into this problem, but I didn't want you to worry about that before the training. I also didn't want to contaminate how you might look at some of the veteran employees, and in particular, the mentor that gave you a hard time.

As a result of that conversation, the mentor was relieved of his position. (Kilburg & Hancock, 2006, p. 1331). When the mentee learned he had a new mentor with a positive attitude, he was elated. The protege felt the mentoring coordinator was supporting his success.

PUSH BACKS - A majority of program coordinators had to deal with push backs on a regular basis. Most the interventions addressed these situations and involved one-on-one conversations with the individual to resolve the situation. The problem solving worked very well for almost all of the coordinators. Unfortunately, two of the coordinators were unable to persuade two supervisors to provide the time needed for participants to meet on a regular basis. The supervisors argued that time was at a premium and what they had must advance their own agenda.

Program coordinators also encountered some unexpected problems. The coordinators understood that as much as they might try, they were not going to be able to identify all of the problems in the beginning and that this was part of the learning curve. In all but one situation, the coordinators were able to effectively manage unforeseen problems. These included miscommunication between mentoring team members, personality conflicts, concerns about the lack of time, and the lack of emotional support. Most of these situations were managed through one-on-one conversations with the mentoring program coordinator and mentoring team members utilizing coaching and problem-solving strategies.

In one specific case, the mentoring coordinator was not informed of the problems that one new employee was encountering. Although the mentor and supervisor made every effort to assist the new employee, in the end, the new employee resigned because he was unable to cope with the problem. After he talked with the mentoring coordinator the coordinator’s response was:

This was really unfortunate. I wish I had known about it earlier. We might have been able to provide additional assistance, although that might not have guaranteed his success.

After meeting with the coordinator, the senior researcher met with the new employee to hear his perspective. The following is part of that conversation.

I don't blame anyone for what happened. My mentor tried to help me as much as she could but I just never seemed to get comfortable. I knew that I would probably have the same problem again. I think it's time to retire and do something else and that's okay with me.

Supervisors

Time was a problem for approximately 50% of the supervisors. Since the planning process for three of the five mentoring programs did not take place until four months before the mentoring programs had to be implemented, supervisors did not have time to create schedules that permitted time for the mentoring teams to meet during the day. The intervention strategies that the supervisors agreed upon, but only half of those supervisors implemented, was to provide a substitute and/or the supervisor would fill in for one of the mentoring team members. Although this intervention had merit and did provide some release time, it also took away time from the supervisors' busy schedules. Unfortunately, there were numerous times when a supervisor had committed to providing release time, but was unable to do as they promised.

In several organizations, veteran employees who were not part of the mentoring program volunteered to assist the new employee and mentor by filling in for them during their own free time. In both cases where the supervisor and the veteran employee provided release time, mentoring team members appreciated the thoughtfulness and the willingness of other staff members to help.

Funding at the building level was also a supervisor concern because the budgeting process for the new year had already been established prior to the implementation of the mentoring programs and no money had been allocated for the implementation of the mentoring program. The intervention strategies that 95% of the supervisors used to provide funding for the mentoring teams in their buildings included use of staff development monies, discretionary funds, and Title II funding. Although the supervisors were not able to provide all of the funding the mentoring teams needed they still had a sense of satisfaction in knowing that they were able to provide release time for observations which the organization did not have the funding for during the first year.

During the fifth and sixth year of the study, supervisors typically struggled with providing staff development time for the Critical Friends Group monthly meetings. Four of the eight organizations had built time into their monthly staff development schedules for the CFG meetings. However, there were four sites that had not built in time for the CFG meetings, so the employees were meeting on their own time without compensation. It is important to note that none of the employees who voluntarily participated in the CFG ever requested compensation, but were still willing to attend those monthly meeting as time permitted in their schedules. The intervention was to have the program director and the assistant CEO contact the individual supervisors and talk about the value of the CFG and the potential positive impact that it could have on results. This conversation is still ongoing at the present time.

Critical Friends Group Coaches

The fifth and the sixth year of this study were the only years that CFG Coaches were part of a mentoring program. Time was the biggest problem for the coaches for a variety of reasons. Not all supervisors had scheduled staff development time during the day for the CFGs to meet. At least half of the organizations did not have release time during the day and so the employees met after hours in order to work together in the CFGs. The organization is currently working on requiring their supervisors to include the CFG as part of the regular staff development during the day, once a month. However, not all of the supervisors are in agreement with providing the time for the CFGs because it takes time away from their agendas. At the present time, the program coordinator and assistant CEO are continuing to dialogue with those supervisors that are unwilling to commit the time for the CFG.

Some CFGs continue to struggle with finding time to meet because of employees' busy schedules. Unfortunately, meetingss, coaching, planning, and other commitments reduce the time available for some employees in the CFGs. As a result, one veteran employee, who was also a CFG coach, said:

It's great to have the time set aside during the day to meet once a month, but a few of the sites aren't provided with that time because of resistance by the supervisor, which is too bad.

It seems as though the supervisors who are currently participating in the Leadership CFG, which is led by the assistant CEO, are the ones who make the release time available for the CFGs. Those supervisors that don't participate are the ones typically that don't provide the release time. Several other CFG coaches had this to say regarding supervisors who were not willing to provide release time for the CFGs to meet.

Although it is discouraging that we have to fight so hard for the release time, we know that the assistant CEO, who helped design the mentoring program, and the mentoring coordinator will continue to urge the supervisors to include the CFG meetings as a part of their day once a month . . . all we can do is keep hoping.

It is interesting to note that in several of the sites which provide dedicated release time for staff development, CFGs are just one of the optional professional development activities that employees can choose. Some employees select the CFG because it is the least invasive as far as the menu of activities. The coaches who facilitate these CFG recognize that is “just the way things are going to be for some of the employees.” In the end, the coaches hope the CFG conversations will lead to a better understanding of the need to examine problems from a variety of perspectives as well as demonstrating the value of working with a community of lifelong learners.

Conclusions
This study sought to illuminate some of the problems that five leadership teams encountered on a regular basis and their responses to intervention procedures that were introduced. That information can be helpful to all mentoring program leaders.

However, the study's real significance lies in our recommendations for how readers who also encounter those challenges might manage their own interventions in their mentoring programs. Therefore, we offer here suggestions for interventions to the major challenges this study identified: time, institutional barriers, assessments, change and conflict, and building new kinds of professional relationships.

1. Time

The challenge of time has been one of the most difficult issues for mentoring teams and for the leadership teams who are responsible for planning, implementing and assessing the impact of their programs. Finding the time to plan is almost always complicated by the busy schedules that leadership team members have. Although most leadership teams are volunteers, the team participants are typically people that participate in many of the other activities where leadership, expertise and interpersonal skills are required.

It is critical for organizations to provide ample time for leadership team members to collaborate with one another on a regular basis. Organizations also need to provide release time, alter job descriptions to accommodate a leadership team members’ work load, and/or provide some form of compensation to demonstrate that the extra work done is valued.

It is also important to provide mentors and mentees with ample time to meet and observe one another. Given the traditional structures in most organizations it's not surprising that mentoring teams are often overlooked. Frequently, time is organized to optimize work and professional conversations and collaboration to improve that work are not viewed as “work”. Employees in the same department or level may or may not be at the same site and they are seldom given paid time to work together to develop a common vision or to discuss and resolve challenges. When little to no attention is paid to those important mentoring conversations then, not only do the employees suffer, but their professional development and other desired results suffer as well.

2. Institutional Barriers

Institutional commitment and support are essential from the success of the mentoring and the mentoring program. This is necessary to make the program visible and its goals attainable. As an instructional leader, the principal can complement the work of the mentors by spending time interacting on a regular basis with teachers. Beginning teachers need to know their principals’ expectations of them and what they can expect from the principal. They also need the opportunity to understand what their principal has done to prepare themselves to assist the new teacher, if the novice can achieve their goals and potential by following the advice of and working with the principal, and whether or not they can trust the future of their career to him/her.
Empirical evidence suggests that beginning teachers who exit the profession often do so because of inadequate support from the administration (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Given this fact, it is both timely and vital that school districts carefully select administrators with a heart and mind for the mentoring process and who desire creating a culture of change and building a professional learning community.
It is also important that administrators have a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities in the mentoring process. This is especially true as it relates to their role of supervisor, coach, mentor, and colleague in the mentoring process and the impact it has on the process when those roles are not carried out in an appropriate fashion.
Funding is another institutional barrier that can impede progress and cause mentoring program failure. Without proper funding, some participants may not give the 100% expected of them in the mentoring relationship. Some mentees may become overwhelmed with daily work to the point where mentoring workshop schedules can't fit their busy schedule. Without appropriate funding mentoring teams cannot make sufficient time in their day to plan, conduct, and debrief professional learning experiences, and these teams will feel they are not a valued part of the educational profession. In the end, school districts need to be willing to commit the appropriate funding for any mentoring and induction program it has.

3. Assessments

Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring program participants and members of the leadership team is extremely important during all phases of the mentoring program. One of the most direct ways of knowing if we are “doing our job” is to evaluate the progress and success of the people we are serving on a regular basis. That not only provides us with information about what needs to be changed to help them become more effective, it also shows support for the participants and values the recommendations they've made.

4. Change and Conflict

Throughout these transitions, most mentoring programs experience periods of stability and periods of change. Although events that stimulate change offer the greatest potential for growth, they can also provide the greatest challenges. Schon (1971) considers these challenges as “zones of uncertainty”, that is, like being lost at sea, confronting more information than you can handle, or challenging personal agendas that differ from the status quo. That is why, when creating a mentoring program, it is important for leadership teams to prepare program participants for successful transitions at both the professional and personal level. All program participants, including the leadership, need to recognize that change is multidimensional and can vary from person to person or from group to group. When people are asked to change or alter their basic identity and sense of competence, it is critical that opportunities be provided for them to develop a sense of meaning about why the change is important.
The knowledge that some mentoring team members might encounter problems, should help those who are planning and coordinating mentoring programs to develop strategies that will address the issue of change and provide more realistic expectations of the mentoring process. Mentoring planning committees and mentoring coordinators need to recognize that although change is planned for, it is not always anticipated, nor appreciated.

5. Building Relationships

Building trust between educators is rarely a simple matter. The limited resources and time so common in schools are just a few of the obstacles to creating trust. When there are budget shortfalls, competitive behavior, widespread differences of opinion regarding teaching practices, policies, diverse personal and professional agendas, or other such issues, trust is at-risk. Yet trust is the essential ingredient in trying new practices and learning in front of colleagues.

The nature of relationships among adults within a school has a greater influence on the character and quality of that school than anything else. Teachers and administrators demonstrate all too well the capacity to either enrich or diminish one anothers’ lives, and thereby, the impact of their collective work.

Roland Barth (2006) has identified four categories of relationships that are found in educational settings. Those categories include:

1. Parallel Play - The most primitive stage of development in which 2 to 3 year olds play in the same sandbox together, but are playing in isolation, more interested in their own work than playing with the other child. Many traditional schools are filled with adults whose work patterns are similar.
2. Adversarial Relationships - This can take many forms in school. It could be a teacher withholding activity ideas, resources, or teaching strategies from another teacher. It could also be an administrator lobbing verbal hand grenades at a teacher with whom they are frustrated. Such behaviors often occur when resources are scarce and relationships become competitive.
3. Congenial Relationships - are personal and friendly, but there is little to no investment in the other person’s life or the success of their work.
4. Collegial Relationships - depend on congenial relationship as a prerequisite and a desire to become invested in the professional life and success of other teachers.

Barth also believes that,

"A precondition for doing anything to strengthen our practice and improve a school is the existence of a collegial culture in which professionals talk about practice, share their craft knowledge, and observe and root for the success of one another. Without these in place, no meaningful improvement-no staff or curriculum development, no teacher leadership, no student appraisal, no team teaching, no parent involvement, and no sustained change-is possible." (p. 12)

"To promote collegial relationships in the school, the administration as well as the mentoring program leadership team must make relationships among adults a discussable. “They need to serve as a minesweeper, disarming those landmines.” (p. 13)

The foundation for reaching and implementing that conclusion is professional trust and collegial relationships. Building such relationships is daunting UNLESS mentoring can be undertaken in such a way as to give participants daily practice, within a safe relationship, of the skills of collegial realtionships. Then, one relationship at a time, the culture of the school WILL change.

6. Designs for Professional Learning

Finally, local personnel and higher education faculty need to share the results of their investigations to build on the research on mentoring tensions and intervention procedures that are implemented to remedy those tensions. As educators learn more about the problems that mentoring teams encounter beyond those typically found in the literature, they will be in a better position to explore more fully the limits of applied intervention techniques. It is important to monitor the progress of our efforts through well-designed research for the dual purpose of informing practice and policy and discovering those questions that have yet to be asked.

References

Austin, A., & Baldwin, R. (1992). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on employee Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347 958).
Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25-28.
Barkely, S. (2005). Quality teaching in a culture of coaching. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (1997). From first-year to first-rate: supervisors guiding beginning employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bull, K. S. (2003). PFF mentorpartners. Preparing academic mentors partner/faculty preparation [Electronic Version]. Retrieved Retrieved 11/15/2006 from http://home.okstate.edu/homepages.nsf/toc/PFFmentorpartners.
Buonocore, D. (2004). Leadership in action: Creating a change in practice. AACN Clinical Issues, 15(2), 170-181.
Clutterbuck, D. (2002). Why mentoring programs and relationships fail [Electronic Version]. Link and Learn eNewsletter Retrieved November 13, 2006 from http://www.linkageinc.com/company/news_events/link_learn_enewsletter/archive/2002/12_02_mentoring_clutterbuck.aspx.
Cross, C., & Rigden, D. (2002). Improving employee quality. American Board Journal, 1989(4), 24-27.
De Bevoise, W. (1986). Collaboration: Some principles of bridgework. Educational Leadership, 9-12.
DePree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell Publishing.
Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: employees helping employees to improve student learning [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 23, 2007 from http://www.pdkintl.org/research/rbulletins/resbul28.htm.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for organization leadership. Washington D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
Ferguson, D.L. & Morihara, B.V. (2007 October). Decision points for the ODE mentoring summit: A synthesis of research and practice. A Paper presented at the Oregon Department of Education Mentoring Summit, Salem, Oregon.
Freedman, M., & Jaffe, N. (1993). Elder mentors: Giving schools a hand. NASSP Bulletin, 76(549), 23-28.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of organization leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I,. & Lee, C. (2005 August). Induction into learning communities [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 30, 2007 from
http://www.nctaf.org.
Ganser, T., Bainer, D. L., Bendixon-Noe, M., Brock, B. L., Stinson, A., D'Antoni, et al.
(1998). Critical issues in mentoring and mentoring programs for beginning employees. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Garet, M., Porter, M., Desmoine, L., Birman, B., & Kwang, S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-946.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Columbus: OH: Merrill.
Graves, D. H. (2001). The energy to teach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gray, W. A., & Gray, M. M. (1985). Synthesis of research on mentoring beginning employees. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 37-44.
Grument, M. R. (1989). Dinner at Abigail's: Nurturing collaboration. National Education Association, 20-25.
Janas, M. (1996). Mentoring the mentor: A challenge for staff development [Electronic Version]. Journal of Staff Development 17. Retrieved March 17, 2005 from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/janas174.cfm.
Kilburg, G. (2003). Mentoring partnerships that work. Paper presented at the International Mentoring Association Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Kilburg, G. (2006). Valuing supervisors in K-12 mentoring programs. Unpublished raw data.
Kilburg, G., & Hancock, T. (2003). Addressing sources of collateral damage in mentoring programs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Kilburg, G., & Hancock, T. (2006). Addressing sources of collateral damage in four mentoring programs. employees College Record, 108(7), 1321-1338.
MacRae, P., & Wakeland, D. (2006). Building a sustainable mentoring program: A framework for resource development planning. Folsom, CA: Mentoring Resource Center.
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1999). Creating a employee mentoring program. Paper presented at the National Foundation for the Improvement of Education Symposium, Los Angeles, CA.
National School Reform Faculty (NSRF). (2006, December 28). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.harmonyschool.org/nsrf/faq.html.
Newton, A., Bergstrom, K., Brennan, N., Dunne, K., Gilbert, C., Ibarguen, N., et al. (1994). Mentoring: A resource and training guide for educator. Andover, MA: U.S. Department of Education
Portner, H. (2001). Training mentors is not enough: Everything else schools and organizations need to do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Portner, H. (2006). Coaching skills for successful teaching. Paper presented at the Oregon Mentor Academy, Western Oregon University, Monmouth, OR.
Portner, H. (Ed.). (2005). employee mentoring and induction: The state of the art and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Scherer, M. (1999). A better beginning supporting and mentoring new employees. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sherk, J. (1998). Best practices for mentoring programs [Electronic Version]. The EMT group. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://www.emt.org/userfiles/BestPractices.pdf.
Sweeny, B. (1993). Supporting a peer coaching program: The need for a coaching coordinator [Electronic Version]. International Mentoring Association. Retrieved November 14, 2006 from http://www.employeementors.com/RSOD%20Site/PeerCoach/PCcoord.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Yes you can: A guide for establishing mentor programs to prepare youth for college [Electronic Version]. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YesYouCan/sect2-fsteps.html.
Wesorick, B. (2002). 21st century leadership challenge: Creating and sustaining healthy healing work cultures and integrated service at the point of care. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 26(5), 18-32.
Wheller, A. H., & Fanning, J. (1989). Developing successful partnerships through collaboration: Implementing a premier employee education program. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council of State on In-service Education, San Antonio, TX.
Yin, R. K. (2002a). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2002b). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

The principal author can be reached at Gary M. Kilburg, George Fox University, 414 N. Meridian Street,  Newberg, Oregon 97132, or by email at gkilburg@georgefox.edu

Edited by Barry Sweeny